N N. Mithal J. - (1.) THE writ petition is listed for admission in which parties have already exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and all the relevant facts have been placed on record. Learned counsel for the parties, therefore, suggested that the writ petition may itself be disposed of at this very stage finally. Consequently parties' learned counsel were heard on the merits of the petition also.
(2.) IN this writ petition the order passed by 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad dated 18-8-86 has been challenged. By the said order the court has allowed the plaintiff's appeal against rejection of the injunction application by the trial court and the petitioners have been restrained from interfering with her possession over the disputed land. In order to properly appreciate the controversy it will be relevant to point out that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff on the allegations that she was bhumidhar of the disputed land. The petitioners got a sale deed executed on 6th February, 1965 in respect thereof through impersonation and on its basis got an ex-parte mutation of their names made in the revenue records. The mutation order was challenged by the plaintiff without loss of time and ultimately the Tahsildar recalled the same. Against that order an appeal was filed by the petitioners but without success Thereafter the matter was brought before the Board of Revenue and implementation of the order was stayed by it and the matter is still sub-judice. In the suit the plaintiff had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction only and simultaneously applied for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession. The application was rejected by the trial court holding that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court but it was reversed by the appellate court holding that the civil court had the jurisdiction.
(3.) THE petitioners' learned counsel has urged that the civil court could have no jurisdiction in view of decision in Vijai Singh v. 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 1982 RD 207 where the facts were no doubt very similar to the facts of the instant case. THE decision was based on the law as laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Awlamb v. Jata Shankar, 1968 AWR 731. However, the point in controversy in that case was different. It related to jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Court where more than one reliefs were claimed in the suit, some of which were amenable to civil court's jurisdiction while some others could be granted exclusively by the Revenue Court In the present case, the controversy relates to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction and the question raised is whether this necessarily involves declaration of plaintiffs' right in respect of the land ? THE controversy here is, therefore, much narrower and is confined to the question whether in a suit where the only relief claimed is an injunction, in all cases invariably a declaration is involved ? In view of Section 9 CP normally a suit for injunction would be cognizable only by the Civil Courts. However, in view of Section 331 of UP ZA & LR Act the jurisdiction of the civil court has been taken away in certain types of cases. Section 331, in so far as it is relevant for our purposes, provides as under : " 331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act- (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 43 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application : Provided that where a declaration has been made under section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. Explanation-If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the Civil Court may not be identical to that which the Revenue Court have granted. " Thus, a perusal of the section will show that apart from suits for possession and declaration in respect of land covered by that Act, all other suits, where relief could be granted by the Revenue Courts on the cause of action on which the suit is founded, will also be amenable to the jurisdiction of the revenue courts and civil court shall have no jurisdiction over such suits. It is by now well established by a catena of decisions that it is not the form in which the relief is couched but the true nature of the cause of action from which the rights flow which should determine the forum of the suit. There may indeed be cases where the relief appears to be innocent looking e. g. for injunction or cancellation of a void deed but some where deep down in the allegations constituting the cause of action there might be a hidden desire to seek declaration of rights. If on examining all the plaint allegations and other surrounding circumstances, the court gathers that the true relief is not for pure injunction but is coupled with declaration, then the civil court shall have no jurisdiction and the matter must be left to be decided by the revenue court;